An Bord Pleanála
Impact on residential amenities
Download 0.92 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Evidence by planning authority
- Third party submissions
Impact on residential amenities(04/05/2007) This issues was discussed on the last day of the hearing to facilitate expert witness Dr. Stein’s attendance. The speaker for the DAA was Niamph O’Sullivan of ARUP consultants. She was the coordinator of the EIS for the proposed development. She examined the impact on the amenities of the residential properties under a number of headings during and post construction. DAA was not located in a residential area, but there were a number of residential areas in the vicinity. The site where the T2 and Pier facilities were located was at a considerable distance from the residential areas. It had been explained previously that there would be no adverse impact on the visual amenities of the residential areas as a result of the proposed development and it was important to draw attention to the fact that this was a highly developed environment with ongoing development over the years. The impact would be localised and within the confines of the airport. While the proposed terminal building would be highly glazed and there would be increased illumination at the airport, its visibility would again be confined to the immediate area, and would not be significantly above the existing levels. There would be no adverse impact on the night sky. It had been explained during the hearing that the construction noise would be within acceptable limits, and the measures adopted were appropriate. No undue impact would arise from the airport activities (both on the air side and on the landside) during the operational stage. There would be no significant increase in noise levels to impact on residential environments both day and night time. The impact from emissions on the air quality during the construction stage would be minimal. Dust generation would be confined to the terminal site, and possibly to an area within 50m. This would arise from demolition and breaking of concrete, but would be sufficiently removed from the residential areas. During the operation of the terminal similarly the emissions would be low. The DAA was committed to maintaining monitoring ambient air quality. There would be some impact from traffic on roads outside the site area. The mitigation measures during construction period included staggering of starting and finishing times of the construction to reduce impact on peak times, scheduling of access and delivery of materials to site would prevent queues. The junction improvements in the surrounding roads such as R132 would prevent congestion and impact on residential areas. As outlined earlier the significant measures in the areas of surface water discharge and attenuation would lead to lower levels of discharge from the site and together with similar measures proposed for the northern runway would result altogether result in reduced discharges as a whole and consequently a more positive impact on the environment and residential areas through reduced risk of flooding. Evidence by planning authorityMr. Flanagan said the planning authority agreed with the analysis presented by the first party. They would refer to proposed 14 of the submission of Ms. Kenny’s evidence and also draw attention to the revised condition no 31 in relation to construction times as discussed earlier. Third party submissionsMs. Lawton stated that airports could be compared to large industrial complexes such as oil refineries or power plants. Dublin Airport was the largest source of vilotile organic hydro carbons. It was measured that in an area of 6km x 8km Heathrow airport generated 60% of all the NO2 emissions, as well PM10 and PM 25. The figures were 70% for Frankfurt and 30 % for Zurich. We did not know in Dublin Airport because it was not measured. FCC measured only one compound. Information was not available on emissions which caused asthma, bronchitis. In terms of noise they preferred to adhere to the WHO Guidelines which considered 57dBA as significant noise. 30 Leq was more appropriate for bedrooms. There was argument that the terminal did not generate noise, but the passengers using the proposed terminal would be flying over the schools and playgrounds in Portmarnock area. Such noise levels caused chronic educational disadvantage. The students taking part in young scientist had noticed that when being asked questions the residents of Portmarnock were shouting out their answers, instead of speaking at a normal level. They were adopting to the constant noise without realising they were shouting. They had serious concerns about public safety. The EIS had stated there would be no additional impact but there was no evidence of revision to address the increase. Portmarnock was located within public safety zone, with huge numbers of residents. There were schools which would not be permitted if applied now. People sitting in traffic were at similar high risk as the residential areas. None of these would be allowed if public safety zones were implemented. They had serious concerns regarding contamination of water quality. They did not end up in a situation like Galway. They asked the Board to require local authority to implement the plans and make monitoring data available to public. She referred to the Noise Directive 2000/49/EC and asked why wait to implement its requirements. The night curfew was a significant issue. Speaking on behalf of Ms. O’Brien Mr. Fitzmaurice stated that T2 could not be separated from T1. Anything that effected one effected the other. As seen in the recent incident in Little Forest Lane which lead to its closure, had serious implications on all the roads surrounding Dublin Airport. Half of the surface water in Cuckoo catchment was coming directly from Dublin Airport runway, flooding the area, contaminating water sources, and discharging into Baldoyle estuary which was a designated area. As stated earlier the attenuation tank in the SR technic development had failed and te adjacent car park was flooded. A number of developments were being carried out in anticipation of the proposed T2. All of these would have negative effects cumulatively. Separate applications were preventing assessment of the environmental affects cumulatively, and precluding discussion of the sus development of the airport as a whole. Air pollution monitoring could not separate the sources. Emissions monitoring had to be in real time. Noise monitoring must take place in permanent locations. The monitoring of figutive emissions to water must be timely. He suggested all monitoring should be real time to allow early detection. This would help DAA , FCC and the community. He further stressed that monitoring without controls was useless. The proposed public safety zones must be decided soon. There would be increased noise as a result of the proposed terminal. Noise had significant impact on the residents as well as visitors to the velvet strand. He had suggested at the runway hearing that the school at Kinsealy where 64dBA levels were measured should be relocated. There were several international airports in the island of Ireland of which 3 were operated by DAA. The airlines should be encouraged to provide extra routes from these airports. The Government’s NSS would be better addressed by developing those airports. He brought it to the attention of the Board that DAA and FCC were engaged in an enterprise which was damaging his health as well as health of his children and grandchildren for decades to come. They could not view it in equinamity. While the two authorities would benefit from this grandeosi dream, the tax payer would foot the bill and the communities would pay for the consequences. Mr. Byrne stating that he will only speak briefly referred to the studies showing devaluation of property located under the flight paths in other jurisdictions. In UK it was calculated to be 20%. He was not looking for compensation, but merely stating that such studies existed. He was more interested on devaluation of his health. He could like others in his neighbourhood smell the kerosene. He wanted to be able to sleep and use his garden. There was significant concern in the community about the cancer cluster in St. Anne’s estate. There was another cluster in Poppointree estate. He questioned if it was a coincidence that these two communities were located at either end of the runway 10/28. Somebody needed to look at the health impact on the communities. FCC had a blurb in the County Development Plan mission statement about importance of those living in Fingal, but was not really doing anything about it. There was a paradox in the cc attitude. They would not allow new schools under the flight paths but the existing ones would be allowed to continue. Noise impact impaired education of children. He wanted to stress that there was total inadequacy on the part of Fingal County Council to consider the impact cumulatively of the developments at this airport on the communities. Mr. Harley stated that the impact on property values was in fact an indication of the impact on other areas as well. People did not want to live somewhere for a reason. The statement that property values were on the increase was misleading. Referring to caterus paribus principle he stated of course they would go up but that the values were lower than they would otherwise be. He had calculated the cost to the community to be in the region of 430 million (over life time not in one year), but the cost to the national economy was in fact 9 times higher. This was a fundamentally uneconomic proposal. he nation should worry about it. The argument that there would be no impact as a result of the terminal was flawed. The proposed terminal designed for 15mppa would create 120 000 movements a year, The do-nothing scenario was not a valid basis for comparison. It was not plausible to have two runways operating from a single terminal. If the second terminal was not allowed, the second runway could not be built. Dr. Staines was asked by residents associations to examine the EIS from the point of impact on human health. He had looked at the EIS several times and was astonished to see that for a project of this size there was no evidence that consideration was given to such an impact. One could not make a valid planning decisions without assessing the human health impact. The reason for considering such effects was to either refuse the proposed development or if the impacts were not considered mitigation measures could not be considered. He did not believe that during the operational stage T2 would not be associated with aircraft movements or traffic. Both of these had effect on human health and needed to be considered. He had listened to the first party presentation earlier, and there was no evidence that effects of the proposed development on the health of the communities surrounding the airport were considered at all. It was the job of DAA to consider such an impact. There were no comments from Ryanair, or from Mr. Sweetman. Mr. Flanagan for the planning authority stated that the question was a legal issue, it was a question of whether or not the concept of HIA was a legal concept within the EIS, and as a matter of law whether use of HIA as a requirement or prerequisite of the EIA. The answer was a categorical no. The EIA looked at things more in the round. Nothing in the EIA Directive stated that examination of various impacts such as noise could not be done on a chapter by chapter basis. There was no requirement, no obligation for a separate HIA. He did not accept that a HIA was required under EIA. In his view the Board would be incorrect in law to assess the adequacy of the EIS by reference to a HIA threshold. Secondly he did not accept that there has not been an adequate assessment of the effects on the human beings within various chapters of the EIS. He did not accept that the EIS was inadequate in its methodology. None of the documents either from the EPA or from the EU required an assessment in the manner suggested by Dr.Stein. He referred to Article 2, Schedule 6 reminding the mandatory and discretionary requirements, and the current knowledge available in assessing significant impacts. There was no reference in the EPA guidelines that said that a health impact assessment in the manner referred to by Dr Stein. Mr. Sweetman disagreeing with Mr. Flanagan referred to Article 3 of the Directive which states that an EIS shall identify, describe and assess impact of each case on human beings, soil, air .etc and assess the interaction between the indents, he could not understand how one could assess the impact of these without assessing the interactions and impact on the health of human beings. He further stated that the EPA Guidelines actually stated that health effects should be taken into consideration. Ms. Lawton requested that planning authority to read out DAP 13 (4.6.5), and referred to a motion passed by FCC in Sept 2005, requiring that health impact assessment be carried out in the LAP to address the concerns of the residents in relation to air and noise pollution. Mr. Sweetman stated that this was not carried out. Mr. Flanagan was not suggesting that health impact has not been assessed. What he was saying was that the methodology adopted by the applicants to examine this was consistent with the requirements of the legislation. He did not agree that HIA should replace EIA, but rather be examined as part of it. Dr. Staines agreed that health impact assessment is part of the EIA. There were many aspects to be considered in a development such as engineering, economic, or transport aspects which were important and required expertise. The health impact must be included on the same level as these. The EPA Guidelines back in 1996 specified specifically that human health must be examined. He would argue that in the EIS as presented there was no adequate consideration of human health impact. Mentioning in several sections did not consider such an assessment. Mr. Flanagan stated that DAP 13 referred to the environs of the airport, where for example current and predicted changes in air quality must be assessed. It said this should form part of the EIS. Having regard to the current legislation, these were appropriately assessed. There was nothing wrong form the point of EIA legislation with examining these on a chapter by chapter basis. He said lets not overly focus on the decision of the planning authority. If somebody was of the view that there was something fundamentally wrong with their decision, they could have challenge it, they could have challenged the LAP. This was not done. Instead they chose to appeal the decision. He had made his decision and deemed the EIS to be adequate. The matter was before the inspector now. He also wanted to point out that when one read the submissions and observations made in the first instance. At this hearing it was expanded greatly in the hearing. He did not have a problem with it. It was a decision by the inspector, and it was a project of national and strategic importance. One had to bear in mind that the submissions that were made to the planning authority were much more limited. It was now up to the Board. There were a number of objectives with letters DAP which related to South Fingal. There were three policies, under air and water quality management and required that every development in the vicinity of the airport. DAP 13 dealt with air quality, DAP 14 with water quality. He said we had quite a long discussion on those issues. There was no current legislation that required a human health assessment. This policy was introduced by a particular elected member and done on a non-statutory basis. It was well established in law one did not look at them in isolation of individual objectives or policies in a development but looked at them in an overall context. Sean O' Faircheallaigh thought it was not the best worded policy in the development His recollection was that the intention was to ensure that air and water quality management issues were taken into account where an EIS was involved, then somebody thought it was a good idea to throw in health impact. He did not think it meant you must carry out a health impact assessment. In any event it did not exist under Irish law. Mr. Flanagan concluded they were satisfied all the relevant air and water quality management the process was appropriate process, the issues were correctly identified and ventilated in the EIS, and equally were forming a part of this three week long hearing and were being discussed as part of the information gathering exercise for the purposes of the inspector’s report. Dr. Staines repeated that in his view health was required to be assessed as a component of the EIA. There was nothing in the documents presented so far that provided adequate assessment of human health impacts. If the assessment was not done, and he suggested was not done, than it was not possible to introduce mitigation measures. In response to question by the inspector if there was a model used in other European jurisdictions, he stated that it was commonplace in other European countries. He referred to Schiphol runway extension, where there was a state of the art health impact assessment where the detailed evaluation done of the health of the population around the airport, detailed evaluation was done on potential impacts, and on-going monitoring of the mitigation measures. Other examples were Frankfurt and great deal of work were done around Heathrow airport. A very small example was the proposal for converting an old RAF base to a small commercial airport. It was accompanied by a full scale health impact assesment as part of the EIA. Mr. Sweetman referred to the judgement of Mr. Justice Mc. Carthy on the Mc Garry and others v Sligo County Council, and stated that the County Development Plan was a contract between the planning authority and the people. Mr. O’Donnell would deal with three issues, public safety zones, property values and air emissions. Acknowledging Dr. Sttaines’ expertise, and his views that health impact statement must form part of the EIA, he said that would have to be considered within the statutory code of EIA legislation. We were dealing with the case under Planning and Development Act, 2000 Referring to Schedule 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations, which identified the context within which what is required to be contained in the EIS and what is required as part of the assessment is at indents one f the Schedule was the main effects, and then the likely significant impacts. It did not include every impact, but it was the significant impacts . Secondly, as far as EIS concerned , the approach was confirmed by An Board Pleánala and EPA, and indeed by the courts where you identified the likely significant effects. In so far as the human health issues they might arose from the proposed development directly or indirectly, form the emissions from the proposed development . These were of course considered in this case as part of preparation of the EIS. But it was found that there were no significant effects. So far as air emissions were concerned the figures in the EIS showed these were well below the limits set, where any consequences might arose for human health. The process was open and transparent. In response to the question by the inspector as to what would be included in a HIA if one was to carry one, Dr. Stein stated that he would not talk about the construction stage, because it very specialised. He would refer to operational stage. The major impacts from the terminal would be operational impacts related to first to flight movements, noise emission of violatile organics, outflaw from the runway area of contaminated water, emissions from aircraft exhausts, carbon dioxide emissions, fuel discharge. Second set would be related to transport of cargo, humans, fuel, and congestion. Noise was a major impact which has deleterious impact on the education of children, and in some cases hypertension and cardiovascular problems. These were all the impacts he would expect to be assessed and quantified, and only then one could decide they were not significant. He could not see how you could decide it was negligible if they were not assessed. Mr. O’Donnell started with noise, the impacts arising form the construction ad operation were given during the noise module. Nobody took issue with the conclusion of the experts. Similarly the water was examined in a separate module, in great detail. Two separate systems for discharge of contaminated water and clean water. Air emissions from the landside transport were also examined under a separate module. Nobody could state these were not considered. Perhaps maybe not using the methodology he is suggesting, but they were considered. The approach adopted by Dr. Staines was worth considering in a more strategic context perhaps LAP. The approach adopted here was within the context of EIA legislation. At the invitation of Mr. O’Donnell Mr. Bailey explained that in examination of air quality impacts one looked at two things. First one looked at it under the National Air Quality Standards (2002), to see if they exceeded significantly. And for the development one looked at a mathematical model exercise to see if they would have significant impact on the NAQS. These were the only tools to measure if there were likely significant impacts. . He referred to the last page of his submission, which related to various figures. You either measured around the airport which DAA was doing for a number of years, and look at concentrations, which might be found beyond site boundary. To make a prediction one modelled to figure likely significant impacts, and compare with NAQS. He emphasised that the standards were incorporated in national legislation, and were devised based on EU expert committees assessing how special limit values should apply for health concerns. So one could take that the levels were where there was no risk to the local community. He was not sure how Dr Staines would carry out the study. The health indicators would be doctor visits, mortality rates, or hospital admissions. He had carried out a study in the 70’s, to measure air quality in Dublin, and it was very difficult to see any significant relationship. He concluded that health impact a2ssessment was carried out within the confines of NAQS. The methodology used in the EIS to assess exposure risk to the local community around Dublin Airport examined current ambient air quality based on monitoring results from the air sampling network operated independently for DAA. The results for 2005 and 2006 demonstrated that beyond the airport site boundary none of the measured pollutants exceeded the NAQS. He examined individually, NO2, SO2, Carbon monoxide, benzene, particulates M10 and M25, and Ozone, stating in each case that in residential areas where there were health concerns, the levels were well below the levels set by NAQS. Existing measurement program carried by the DAA was far in advance of what was done in other areas like Stanstead. He was also satisfied that the monitoring network of DAA was adequate to assess the air quality in the area. The results indicated that the residential communities were not at risk from air quality. Also from a theoretical basis, Portmarnock was 6-7km down wind of the runway. At that altitude, any aircraft taking would be sufficiently above ground, and impact on the residential communities would be negligible. To predict the future impact a detailed air dispersion modelling study was carried out based on emissions from the road transport, aviation emissions, and emissions from the airport complex. This type of evaluation demonstrated the community health risk in terms of predicted or monitored air pollutant concentration and compared the values with relevant NAQS. The results of eh air quality impact for T2 indicated that the predicted impact emissions associated with the development will not have an impact on the local air quality. He concluded that based on the approach of evaluating the significance of ambient air quality levels to local community health risk, it was considered that a more intensive investigation of potential risk to health form atmospheric emissions by undertaking a HIA within the local community was not warranted for this development. He referred to the HIA carried out for Heathrow airport. Based on their analysis of GP visits, hospital admissions, the impact of the emissions was effectively nil. They had carried out the study in relation to various pollutants. Mr. Sweetman asked the relevance of HIA in Stanstead. Mr. Bailey was trying to explain that a separate HIA was not necessary in this case. Looking at NAQS provided much better benchmarking. Best approach to looking at the health of communities around an airport was through relating measured levels and modelled levels to the NAQS because there was a built-in safety factor in those standards. In response to question regarding distance of aircraft from St. Margaret, he responded that the emissions during approach was much lower than take-off. These were discussed by various experts during the runway hearing. Ms. Lawton drew attention to the word significant and that there seems to be different interpretations. They would prefer to use the WHO standards. She asked that synergistic approach be taken in assessing the impact on health of population. While Dr. Bailey referred to high altitudes, many times the people living in Portmarnock could see the pilot of the aeroplane flying over from their windows. Mr. Harley said the method in which they arrive insignificant effects was false. You could not build a terminal, but proceed with a runway, where you would have millions of passengers without a place to put them. He suggested they were re-writing the rules of analysis and coming up with non-sense. Referring to inspector’s question earlier he stated they could not ignore the impacts on St. Margaret’s. Concentrating on Portmarnock was not adequate. Dr. Staines had stated (to Mr. Harley) before leaving that Mr. Bailey had not mention health surveys which would clearly define the base line. Mr. Sweetman asked how he could extrapolate from Standstead, which showed no impact, to say there was no effect, while Schiphol did not go ahead because of health impact assessment. The inspector requested documentary evidence to show the said conclusions. The EIA of the Schiphol included a HIA. He said both equally applied, and one could not use one that suited them, and asked if he had read the HIA of Schiphol airport. Mr. Bailey explained that it was in relation to difficulties in providing a causal relationship between hospital admissions, GP visits etc and airport. The population around Schiphol would be much greater than Dublin. He was giving Standstead only as an example of the type of HIA being carried out. He considered use of NAQS to be much more effective. In response to Sweetman he stated Standstead would be in a more rural area. Mr. O’Donnell read a condition suggested by Dr. Bailey:
Sweetman stated this was illegal. In response to the question by the inspector whether continuous monitoring could be made available through a website, he said the DAA would present the results to the planning authority and had no difficulty with making results available to the public, through the planning authority website. Directory: news news -> Nonprofit grant application news -> Bulletin 4 Monday July 8, 2002 Backgammon news -> Last year four of the best Afrikaans Christian singers joined forces to tour Down Under with the production ‘Manne wat Glo’ news -> Management and Marketing news -> World Computer-Chess Championship news -> World Computer-Chess Championship news -> World Computer-Chess Championship Download 0.92 Mb. Share with your friends:
|